Appeal No. 2001-0048
Application No. 08/497,481
the claimed step of determination of an affinity thread having
the same priority as the highest priority thread is the same as
Vaswani’s “identifying the last task from the processor’s history
and executing it if its priority is as high” (id.).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Furthermore, to reach a conclusion of obviousness under § 103,
the examiner must also produce factual basis supported by
teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge
of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with the holding in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Our reviewing court
requires this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007